Opinion
Column

There is no reason for Ontario to emasculate its workforce to compete with the dregs of the U.S. economy.

Yet that's what Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak would do if he got a majority government. He wants to turn Ontario into a province with a so-called right-to-work law, like many of the poorest U.S. states, under the guise of freedom of association.

Montreal Economic Institute president Michel Kelly-Gagnon made the case on Saturday in many QMI Agency papers. Union rates decline when workers are not forced to join them, he said, referring to the right-to-work states in the U.S.

"... When labour laws are set up in such a way that allows workers real freedom of choice, union membership tends to decline," he wrote.

There are many reasons people leave unions. Politics is one. Paying dues is another.

But if you asked taxpayers if they had the choice not to pay taxes, you'd see many taking advantage of it, without a thought about how that would affect the health-care system, or education. Pocketbooks come first.

And not everyone agrees with how unions operate and the political causes they support.

The Rand formula, which was enacted in 1946 in Canada, forces mandatory payment of union dues, which employers collect. This means those who benefit from union activity with higher wages and benefits must pay union dues, although they don't have to join the union. Many economists will argue that organized labour resulted in the creation of the middle class, which in turn gave rise to the most powerful economies in the world.

Still, some call automatic checkoff, as the Rand formula is known, undemocratic. Well, Canada works that way. Ontario works that way.

Your town or city works that way. Mayors, premiers and prime ministers are often elected with less than 50% of the vote, yet all citizens are subject to their rules. And our governments can spend money and take unpopular stands that are not representative of all of us.

Kelly-Gagnon also laments that some unions spend their members' money on causes they might not like. "Without having to earn workers' adherence or dues, unions have little incentive to represent their interests and end up spending collected dues on political and ideological activities," he wrote.

But just like shareholders and investors in companies -- or taxpayers in towns and cities, for that matter -- it's up to union members to challenge the leadership, hold them accountable and change things from within.

The reality of right-to-work states is that most have poor economies. There are 24 such states in the U.S., almost all in the south and Midwest. Five of the bottom six states by per-capita income are right-to-work states. Five of the top six states by per capita income are not.

That's what I mean when I said Hudak would have Ontario, which has a well-educated workforce, competing with the dregs. (I'm not talking about people, just economies.)

Then there is the freedom of association argument. Kelly-Gagnon argues, "The right to join a union is guaranteed by the principle of freedom of association, but freedom of association must include the freedom not to associate."

Yet the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the Rand formula does not violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. This isn't a moral decision; it's a political one.

I'm not arguing for any organized labour organization. I am a manager in a unionized workplace. But what Hudak wants -- and in referring to right-to-work states as the model -- is a simplistic argument based on ideology, while ignoring the practical reality.